Opening research commissioning to civic participation: creating a community panel to review the social impact of HCI research proposals.

Title of the Paper

Opening Research Commissioning To Civic Participation: Creating A Community Panel To Review The Social Impact of HCI Research Proposals

Paper Information

• Subject Area: Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and Social Justice
• Keywords: Social Justice, HCI Design, Civic Participation, Research Commissioning, Digital Technology, Social Impact Assessment, Co-Design, Ethical Responsibility, Digital Inclusion, Civic Engagement

Research Background and Issues

• Problems or Challenges:

  • Digital innovation can exacerbate social injustice by replicating societal inequalities and power asymmetries.
  • Current research processes lack in-depth evaluation of social impacts and the needs of relevant communities.
  • Citizens are often excluded from research design and commissioning processes, making it difficult for them to express their needs for technological improvements.

• Significance:

  • Fair resolution of social justice issues is fundamental to the future development of the digital economy.
  • Traditions such as participatory design and social justice design emphasize that technology solutions developed through community participation better represent diverse needs and values.
  • Ensuring technology does not excessively reinforce existing inequalities while empowering marginalized groups to voice their concerns and drive social transformation.

• Research Motivation and Related Work:

  • This study is inspired by Participatory Design, Digital Civics, and Social Justice-Oriented Design, aiming to place communities at the center of research and technological innovation processes.
  • Existing literature highlights the necessity of civic participation for democratizing design and reducing technological injustice, but there is insufficient exploration of the role of citizens in research commissioning processes.

Solution

• Proposed Approach:

  • Create a Community Panel to involve ordinary citizens in evaluating the social impact of research proposals and influencing research funding allocation.
  • The community panel operates through a two-phase collaborative process:
    1. Designing and testing social impact assessment criteria.
    2. Using these criteria to evaluate specific research proposals.

• Innovative Aspects:

  • A first attempt to extend citizen review to the funding decision-making process for academic research proposals.
  • Redefining research norms to directly align academic processes with the needs of civic life.
  • Emphasizing the personal experiences and ethical responsibilities of citizens in the review process.

• Implementation Steps and Techniques:

  1. Phase One:
     • A two-day in-person workshop to collaboratively develop social impact assessment criteria with panel members, including defining the relationship between technology and social justice based on personal experiences.
     • Methods include "story-sharing and mapping activities" and "active listening and thematic categorization activities" to generate value issues related to social impact.
     • Testing and iteration lead to final criteria such as promoting community cohesion, reducing barriers to technology use, and addressing specific community needs.
  2. Phase Two:
     • Through online collaborative activities and individual tasks, panel members write evaluation reports for research proposals guided by the criteria.
     • Using video conferencing and document collaboration tools, the process involves three rounds of team meetings and task cycles, ensuring a flexible yet structured participation model.

Research Outcomes

• Specific Results:

  • Successfully established a community panel, attracting 27 community members to participate in the two-phase activities.
  • Seven research proposals were funded, including a chatbot supporting women experiencing domestic violence and a toolkit to help young people identify fake news.
  • Panel members gained a deep understanding of research proposals and social justice issues through the participation process.

• Comparative Advantages:

  • This model is more transparent and democratic than traditional funding allocation methods.
  • Directly incorporating citizen input into the proposal evaluation process better reflects community needs rather than researcher-defined agendas.

• Experimental and Evaluation Results:

  • Data analysis shows that panel members excelled at critically thinking about complex issues based on their personal experiences.
  • Although some members felt uncomfortable with their evaluative authority, overall, they held positive attitudes toward the process and their roles.
  • The community panel activities inspired broader possibilities for civic participation, such as expanding to larger communities.

• Limitations and Future Directions:

  • Limitations:
    • Time and resource constraints made broader civic participation difficult to achieve.
    • Some participants’ discomfort with their evaluative authority suggests the need for further exploration of the distribution of review responsibilities and citizen roles.
  • Future Directions:
    • Explore distributed participation models to engage larger-scale community members across locations.
    • Promote civic participation throughout the entire research lifecycle, from initial conception to outcome dissemination.
    • Reshape academic culture by enhancing the "trust bridge" between academia and communities through simplified language and value alignment.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates, through the practice of a community panel, how civic participation can empower a more democratic and ethical process for research related to social justice, proposing an innovative co-design model. However, this model still needs to be expanded to accommodate more diverse citizen groups and broader academic challenges, while exploring how to better embody principles of care and integrity in the process of technological transformation.